Education and Scientism

[Paseosinperro]

i understand that induction method can be discussed, if something has happened many times is not clear it has to happen againg and again,, and that should be taught , but, in maths, which type of axioms do you think are not clear?

[XOmniverse]

@Paseosinperro I don't know that any axioms are clearly taught in math classes. Just instructions with little or no attempt made to connect them to reality.

[Paseosinperro]

@XOmniverse yes i agree with you, maths axioms should be taught (but, arent they?), what i meant is that induction has to be taught because is not clear, i mean it coudnt not work, but maths axioms are diffrent, i mean, they are exact definition, there is no possibility of error. Apart from that, what i think that teacher should teach the aplications that maths can have in real life, after all maths is a tool, it has no utility in itself. Not only math specially in others: history, phillosophy

[Pentazoid111]

I think that science could provide an explanation for why various people have possibly differing perceptions that may be based on the neurological activity of each individual brain to the same piece of art

[XOmniverse]

@Pentazoid111 Even if that were so, does that tell you whether the art is good?

[Pentazoid111]

I don't see why not. If food science can explain why each human being has a preference for a particular food based on the activity of the tastesbuds on the tongue , I don't see why neuroscience cannot explain why individuals see certain art as good and a certain piece of art as bad based on the neurological activity of their own brain. There are universals that human beings share and their are particulars that makes human beings independent from each other.

[XOmniverse]

@Pentazoid111 Food science can possibly explain why a given food is pleasurable, and maybe science can do the same with art.

Science can't, however, make the claim that "pleasurable things are good." That's jumping the is/ought gap.

[theglassbeadgame1]

This response is exactly the kind of thing that this video highlights - that everything can be reduced to a material construct.

[theglassbeadgame1]

Pentazoid 111's comments

[websnarf]

The foundations of mathematics is an extremely difficult subject. I didn't see it until 3rd year of university (and with references to it in NOVA specials). The foundations of science also require a strong grounding in logic which I think very few of my classmates in my starter high school would have been able to handle.

Modern science does not use induction in its foundations (speaking of not being taught the foundation of science ...)

[GStolyarovII]

Another excellent video. As an actuary and an economist by training, I have come increasingly to recognize the limitations of mathematical approaches to human behavior -- which often tend to over-simplify and over-generalize to the point of no longer retaining useful knowledge. I see the same problem in applying methods of the natural sciences to social sciences, where logical reasoning, prudence, and a concern for human benefits and costs outperforms experimentation/mathematical models.

[weilandjason]

Dude you are teaching me so much, that it makes my head hurt. Thank you.

[Sepero1]

deduction > induction

Which is why I think austrian economics (in general) tend to have an advantage, because unlike some other schools, they strongly use deduction.

[XOmniverse]

It's not that simple though.

To a large degree, we form our conceptual understanding of the world through induction. Most of the time that we are using deduction, we are operating with inductively-arrived-at premises.

[Sepero1]

Don't strawman me fool, I'm trying to agree with you! lol

Yes, all that you wrote there is true.

[XOmniverse]

I wasn't trying to strawman you. I was just discussing the topic.

[Sepero1]

Just pullin your leg there man, I ain't no scarecrow.  ;o)

I try to avoid "discussion" in youtube comments. I find it to be a horrible forum for lengthy exchanges. Anyways..... peace

[Sepero1]

We just need a better regulated education system! :D j/k

Yeah, but seriously, I agree with what you're saying here. I think private schools are the way to go.

[NeutrinoideReturns]

There is no Inductive problem in my opinion. To say it is a problem imply there is a valid argument to say there is an alternative. This alternative only come from the formulation of the question itself and not from an actual problem met in reality other then in emotional discomfort toward reality. Where in your life did you ever encounter a situation where it represent that inductive problem?

[fede2]

xom, can you point me to that roderick long article?

[XOmniverse]

I can't put links in Youtube comments. Would a private message work for you?

[fede2]

sure, if you don't mind.

[AdminDan]

Well said, I think of this everyday in school. Why is this true? The only person who ever explains the philosophy behind the subject he's teaching is my music teacher.

[AttunedFlux]

Well said.

[danielsondanielson]

Yeah, agreed, XOmniverse. Kids could learn more about underlying principles of various facts they are provided with in educational establishments. But who knows - maybe they (and their parents) wouldn't be too keen to accept any reforms in such direction. At the end of the day, only small percentage of kids will become intellectuals - the rest will be probably too lazy to think about roots of scientific knowledge anyway. On the other hand, there is plenty of resources for those eager to learn...

[wadams19]

hummm.... the difference between scientific facts vs science.

[brainpolice2]

This elaborates well on what I was getting at in my last video.

[TheObnubilators]

Does anyone know any good history of science or history of philosophy books?

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

I'm unaware of any books on scientific history, but there is a comprehensive nine volume set on the history of philosophy which I would definitely recommend. It is called The History of Philosophy, by Frederick Copleston.

Hope that helps =]

[Individualism101]

Don't you think this is just another way of saying children are TRAINED, not educated during their 12 years of government detention; Which is really what public 'education' was about in the first place if I'm not mistaken.

To highlight the difference: one is trained as a telephone operator, but one is (hopefully) educated as an electrical physicist.

[jagmarz]

Do we teach children letters before we teach them words?

That'd be silly.

We learn from practical experience out -- extrapolating to further conclusions, or zooming in to basics.

Kids don't need to learn the history of the letter a/alpha/aleph before they can be taught to spell "apple".

Science isn't supposed to answer "why", ever. It answers "how". Sometimes these overlap, however.

[XOmniverse]

To be clear, when I say "kid" I don't necessarily mean a very young kid.

Surely there's no reason someone 10+ years of age shouldn't learn about philosophy?

[jagmarz]

... 3rd grade? Sure, education really ought to be about how to think, rather than what to think, but I really doubt that as a third grader I could have apprehended any finer points yet. I mean, in that grade I remember reading The Hobbit and that's about it.

Education today is under direct attack from religious folks who don't want their kids thinking rationally and other who don't think there's a proper government role in that endeavor.

Standardized testing is ruining education.

[sharperguy]

It makes sense that state-run schools wouldn't teach kids to think for themselves.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

As an unapologetic science advocate, I mostly approve of this video. I don't see the "religious" aspect of science as an epidemic, but basic thinking skills definitely lack.

At times I wonder how many teachers actually understand the science they teach. It's hard for me to criticize prior to college, however, since I was a young-earth creationist during my junior high and senior high years. I really thought I was a bad-ass, thumbing my nose at "evilution" and cosmology. Damn, dark years.

[XOmniverse]

To be clear, I LOVE science. And really, in this video I wasn't criticizing science so much as criticizing the fact that its taught in a religious way.

[Agnotio]

@XOmniverse I don't see how science is taught in a religious way, or even could be if it is done properly. The key to science is not its findings, but its method, which is one of critical examination of empirical evidence, experimental testing of predictions, etc. An important part of science is self-criticism and skepticism, which you can't teach in a religious or dogmatic way. If if you teach somebody to be dogmatic about being skeptical, they're still skeptical.

[XOmniverse]

Agnotio: I don't think all that stuff you just mentioned is actually taught to kids to any great degree.

[Agnotio]

No? Go take a look at the top Amazon book for elementary school science called The Complete Book of Science, Grades 5-6. The first thing it does it outline the scientific method. Surely you can't expect children to learn its epistemological foundations, before they have even learned philosophy, but they are taught more than to uncritically accept the results of science. In fact, in many of my classes I recall we were told that to constantly criticize findings is the way science itself works.

[Agnotio]

Just in continuation of my previous point, I thought of nice quip in response to your video: I would say that it's no more possible to teach science religiously, than it is to teach religion scientifically. The two are anathema to one another.

[XOmniverse]

It's possible to teach anything religiously if its presented in such a way that you're supposed to accept it due to pressure from authority figures.

I guess that reveals a fundamental problem with classroom education as a whole, though.

[Bardock42]

Perhaps you can not teach science religiously, but you can definitely teach something resembling science religiously, which would be hard to differentiate. Maybe by focussing on specific parts leaving out others.

[mysticresistence]

@Agnotio indeed, religion should not be presented scientifically, because it is not science or empirical, it is a different thing entirelly...BUT, what is wrong with that? Science has it's limits. ohh, and one can believe in science and religion at the same time. Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, was a devote christian and Timothy Burners Lee, who created the world wide web you are now using, was a universalist unitarian.

[Agnotio]

@mysticresistence The only problem arises when religion presents itself as having knowledge of the world that can compete with science, which is the only true method we have of discovering facts about the world. At best, religion can hold onto those areas where our knowledge is still fuzzy, in some areas of human experience or normative ideals, but these many also one day be explained by science.

[mysticresistence]

@Agnotio That is assuming that one takes religion literally, which many do not. The Myths are not prose, they are poetry, they are not facts and do not tell facts about the world in the material sense, but tell philosophical truths on the human condition and use metaphor to do so. In that sense, religion cannot be proven or disprooven. Also, who says empirical data is the ultimate reality? That is a philosophical opinion, not a fact. But, abandon literalism, and religion cannot be proven false.

[MaikUniversum]

Yes, I agree with you completely here. :) we should taught kids how to think properly

[tiecuando]

Excellent video, Omniverse.

[HymerSchmidt]

I see this with a lot of engineers. They want to "engineer" society. Obsessed with improving the "material" of society, they ignore that the material's constituents are human.

Would they properly understand the human relationship with science, and that it's principles are context specific, I don't think they'd make this error as often.

[EdwardMandellHouse]

Yup, true. Schooling teaches science and math outside of context. The most they will try to do to establish context, it seems, is to relate historical information. All this method actually accomplishes is the perception of an education and the abolition (in most people) of further curiosity towards these subjects.

[fede2]

what is philosophy of science? how is it different from epistemology?

i agree pretty much in full with what you're saying except i'm skeptical of homsechooling as a solution. a lot of parents who homeschool their kids are religious fundamentalists who don't want them to think critically so the risk is the same as private schools, as far as i'm concerned.

[aaron0883]

"i'm skeptical of homsechooling as a solution. a lot of parents who homeschool their kids are religious fundamentalists"

Homeschooling is not ideal when the parents are more abusive than the school. However, since schools are horribly abusive ... It seems like home will often be a better choice. An analogy that comes to mind of your comment would be that Vaginas can be really gross so don't fuck them ... however, I say just stay away from the gross ones.

[fede2]

i wasn't saying that homeschooling was bad per say. i was saying that it can't be considered an ultimate solution since results could go either way. at the end of the day, i'm not sure which is more abusive.

i'm not necesarily defending the opposite alternative. all i'm saying is that a decent education is not intrinsic to the type of institution (or whatever). whichever would require a decent philosophy of education.

[TheEfkk]

They do not have a religious belief in science, since they can, at least if they pay attention, justify scientific conclusions from data and rational arguments and use hypotetico-deductive method rather than naive induction.

This is very reminiscent of creationists claiming that science is a religion because it disagrees with their position, but this might be purely coincidental.

[XOmniverse]

It's coincidental. I am not anti-science, nor do I believe in God or religion.

[boxant]

Great video.

It wasn't till undergrad, when I took a Philosophy of Science (elective) that I was presented with these issues. Now in grad school, I am still amazed by how many of my peers really do not understand the fundamental issues of science and logic.

I think the problem is that it is hard to teach and test on the philosophy of science, logic, math, ect. In addition, they probably do not see the utility in teaching this, which is sad. Learning *how* to think is essential.

[Mementomori690069]

It's the difference between knowing "that", and knowing "how" or "why".